Hello. This edition is focused on Winter Games. There is no official list of articles for the contest. Every item (persona, venue, event, etc.) related to Winter Olympic and Paralimpic Games is fine. --Millars (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I created an article about the Olympic symbols on Ukrainian Wikipedia, it mentions the Winter Olympic Games, but it is not directly connected with them. Is it possible to write articles like this? Or should the articles be linked directly to the Winter Olympic Games? Thank you in advance for your reply.WayDong (talk) 1:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Articles for general Olympic issues are allowed. For example, a Olympic Federation could be possible also. But articles clearly connected to Summer Olympics and nothing to do with Winter Olympics not. --Millars (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

There were some good sources at the Rio Games that provided photos we could use in articles, but I have not seen that yet for these Olympics. Have you all noticed any sources that are publishing photos under a license we can use? Kees08 (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a good question, but I don't know the answer. --Millars (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

User A creates a stub before the event. The stub is 2 KB long and has very basic information like infobox, date, time, venue, competition and distance. The user would get +3 points (1 new and 2 KB), he participates in the contest but is not that motivated to win, and has not enough time to add live results.

User B adds an empty results table. The table is long, the user would get 4 points (4 KB) for a very small effort. The user does not participate in the contest.

User C wants to add results. The total article (infobox + introduction + completed results table) would be 12 KB long. It is clear his works is the most time-consuming among the three. If the article were new, he would have received +13 points (1 new and 12 KB). However, a stub with an empty table already exists, thus he receives only 6 points (+6 KB). He is very interested in the contest and wants to win, and has a lot of time to add live results.

The problem is that user C is not willing to add results to the existing article because he would get less than a half of points he would have received for a new one (6 instead of 13). Because of this there is a conflict between users A and C: C insists on deletion of stubs without results (to get more points), while A insists that stubs do not violate rules as, well, they are stubs. The conflict became really heated within the last two days and split the community between "stubs are good/delete the stubs" and "contests are good/ban this contest" (I think people with such views exist in all communities). What are your thoughts about it? — NickK (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi NickK and thanks for your time. I usually participate in several competitions during a year, sometimes I win, and sometimes I do not. But I always have one thing clear. If I am going to win, I have to find articles that provide me many points and, of course, contribute to the project. If you want to add points, you have a million options, articles, references and tables to include. I think he has to look strategies and not problems with other users. The user A does his job well, because if nobody came behind, at least there is something in the article. These contests are trying to motivate users who do not have a specific theme to edit, I think that they are important at a certain time like the current one, because readers will search those articles. The prizes are secondary, but if someone is very motivated, he has to be as productive as possible. Surely the first ones in the tournament will be those that have included articles with many tables, because these increase the code a lot... --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

One of solutions would be to use tool like Fountian which counts only contributions to text body and skips tables, references, infoboxes (not that these are not important). --Papuass (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)